A new
Letter from the Chairman on the Roberts Space
Industries website follows
yesterday's new
Production Schedule
Report for Star Citizen with more on these future plans for the
crowdfunded space game. In case any of this makes it seems like the completion
of the project is in sight, he makes a point of dashing those hopes, repeatedly
using the phrases "long term" and "longer term" in setting expectations. Here's
the conclusion, which makes it clear that however long they are saying this will
take, it may still end up taking longer:

Itís a pretty big deal to share
the schedule of our longer term roadmap, but we felt that it would help with
everyoneís visibility on when certain features and content can be expected and
understanding when things take longer or priorities shift due to unforeseen
problems. We would not be here without all of your support and in some ways the
Community is an extension of the development team providing the funding and the
feedback on the huge undertaking we are doing.

No one has ever attempted to build a game as ambitious as Star Citizen and I
doubt any Publisher would have the patience or stamina that it requires to build
something that breaks molds the way Star Citizen does. 3.0 with its Planetary
Tech is a testimony to the power of Crowdfunding and an enthusiastic, empowered
Community. Myself and the team and eternally thankful to be able to build Star
Citizen the right way, being able to take the time to engineer things for the
long term, a way that will allow the universe to flourish for years to come.
Together we are making history.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Apr 18, 2017, 12:02:I understand that you hate the game but that doesn't mean you should throw objectivity out of the window and post links to demonstrably false information just because it aligns with your world view. You're just embarrassing yourself.

He loves to call other people zealots and cultist, but fails to look in the mirror at himself. That or he has nothing else in life but to try and convince others that what he thinks or believes are the only thoughts and beliefs people should have ... Sad really ...

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Apr 18, 2017, 12:02:I understand that you hate the game but that doesn't mean you should throw objectivity out of the window and post links to demonstrably false information just because it aligns with your world view. You're just embarrassing yourself.

He embarrasses himself with every post, why should this be any different.

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report"Nullity's Law"There's an easy and fool-proof way to tell if anything related conservative/right-wing/Republican politics is true or not. If anyone calls it "fake news", you can be sure it's the solid truth

Kxmode wrote on Apr 17, 2017, 22:35:In other (older) news, The Escapist quietly purged the Star Citizen articles that called into question a host of issues with the project and financial shenanigans.

That's because the articles were completely unsubstantiated. The information was provided by Derek Smart, a known troll and hater of the project, and by alleged employees identified by their security badges (CIG doesn't use security badges). The author even lifted anonymous comments from another website and portrayed them as a source.

There's plenty of legitimate criticism of the project but the Escapist articles were demonstrably false. Heck, one of the main claims was that CIG had run out of money and was laying off staff - 18 months later and CIG is still in business and has expanded the number of employees it has. The allegations of racism were baseless and no attempt was made to verify the claims with CIG employees or give CIG a chance to respond.

I understand that you hate the game but that doesn't mean you should throw objectivity out of the window and post links to demonstrably false information just because it aligns with your world view. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Kxmode wrote on Apr 17, 2017, 22:35:How do you explain the time and backer money used to go after The Escapist for producing a well-receiving and researched editorial that provided an eye-opening insight into CIG's inner workings?

If I could posit an educated guess, since obviously no one can actually confirm your assertion, he (CR) very likely used his own money and his own lawyer to handle that situation.

Kxmode wrote on Apr 17, 2017, 22:35:The point, don't bring that rosy-eyed, horse excrement to this site. It won't work here. Except for a small few, most of us see Star Citizen as a long-con. That won't change until Chris ships his game, and we see what his madness has wrought.

As long as you're up front that it's your opinion that its a con and you're not simply asserting that it is, I have no issue with it. You're fully welcome, in my opinion, to be wrong. I can bring the light of good sense and logic wherever I please, tyvm!

IF and only if actual, concrete evidence of wrongdoing and a total flight from development and closure of their offices occurs and it becomes self evident that the project will not be completed then I will first want to examine the final reasons as to why such was decided and THEN will I make my own decision on if I felt the whole thing ended up being a massive con instead of just a failure. I'm ok with failure but obviously a scam or con would not be acceptable.

I get how everything that's happened can so easily prompt those who love the sensationalism of it to jump to the conclusions they do. It's fun to get mad when you have a mob, even a small one, to support your "anger" or whatever this is. Why don't I see what the rest of you clearly do? I guess I'm just a Vulcan or something. All the assumptions and heresay and conspiracy theories and illogical claims just hold no weight with me. I want empirical truth before I get on that boat. To me there is, and always has been, a clear lack of ill intention from CIG. They have shown me nothing at all that points to a desire to achieve anything less than what they've proposed. And by "shown me" I refer to all the weekly progress they report on. It may not always be huge from week to week but you know what? It's more than you can say for equally large projects that dive under the radar and stay there until they surface for an "open beta" and then spit their game out 3 weeks later and it's laughed at for being a shred of what they promised. Or worse, when they come out and say its canceled after a long period of silence (EQN!)

Their only "crime" is taking longer than anyone hoped they would, despite all the logic that should have informed them otherwise and prevented such silly hopes. Like I said, the crowd funded their stretch goals. The crowd turned this into a far larger project with a far far far longer development cycle. But lets get real. Even if they'd stayed at 2mil and kept the scope at just a new SP game with online co-op, or whatever the original pitch was, 2 years was still insanely optimistic and dumb of them to assert. Even in 2012 they probably didn't have the manpower or the right producer(s) to get that job done so quickly. To make a point, let's look at the Battletech kickstarter. That was funded in September of 2015 for a pre-established development team. They are now over 1.5 years into development of a vastly smaller game in terms of scope and even they are facing "delays" with a new target release of late summer to early fall. It's only a "delay" (air quotes) because they were forced to offer a release estimate. The point this makes is there simply is no cookie cutter that says how long game development should take. No two projects are alike and no two projects will go through the same iteration before the developers get it right. The only right length of time is however long it takes when and if it comes out and was done right the first time. You will never point to a great game and say "Damn this game is great but it just took way too long to make." But how quickly will we point to a shitty game and say they should have worked on it a few more years? Duh.

It's telling when even the Archive.org pages are butchered. One, Two. (Pro Tip: To remove the background image from the article press F12 to bring up the inspector, search for "article_container", uncheck the background-image)

Meanwhile, earlier articles that sing Star Citizen's praises in varying degrees remain; even some as old as 2013. How do you explain the time and backer money used to go after The Escapist for producing a well-receiving and researched editorial that provided an eye-opening insight into CIG's inner workings? "North Korea." Nowhere is this censorship more apparent than the RSI forums. The point, don't bring that rosy-eyed, horse excrement to this site. It won't work here. Except for a small few, most of us see Star Citizen as a long-con. That won't change until Chris ships his game, and we see what his madness has wrought.

Zor wrote on Apr 17, 2017, 18:15:If anyone here thought that 2014 was even remotely realistic after the community funded all those stretch goals, the joke is squarely on you.

[-happy talk snipped-]

Full disclosure--I am an original backer. [- more happy talk snipped -]

Here we go again.

Chris Roberts: "As is true with most projects when the scope changes so do the timelines, you canít build a castle in the same time you would a wood shed no matter how much money or how many people you have. To try to make some kind of narrative about how we promised the game in two years no matter how big the scope grew is false. Could we have shipped a small scale 30 mission game in the old Wing Commander format in two years? Yes, but thatís not the game the community wants or the game weíre building."

Translation. "We changed the scoped when the money allowed it." I backed what Chris pitched on Kickstarter in 2012, not the monstrosity it became later.

If anyone here thought that 2014 was even remotely realistic after the community funded all those stretch goals, the joke is squarely on you. Doesn't matter what CR and CIG said or didn't say. Fact is YES they were in way over their heads and didn't have the wherewithal to come out and set more realistic expectations given the way things went. Should they have stopped allowing pledges @ 2mil and start them up again after the release of SQ42? Maybe. Who's call was it to make? Theirs and theirs alone. I'm perfectly fine with their choice; I want all those things and I knew it was a possibility. They decided to let the river run and now face the consequences and responsibilities of that action--and that is to make good on ~65mil and then some of stretch goals, AS WELL as everything else they decided they think they can and want to do. And I want them to do all of those things. The simple reality is anyone and everyone who pledged any amount to the project was doing so in full (or willing rejection of) upfront knowledge that they were enabling CIG to do precisely what they want to do: "Help us make the game we've always dreamed of making." That's an open door, in case you missed it. A blank check as long as time and money are available. How people here and elsewhere continue to pretend that isn't the case I will never understand.

Have they had colossal fuck ups and missteps along the way? For sure. Have they stopped producing work? No. Have they stopped releasing updates? No. Do they show evidence of continued development week after week? Yes. Have they conquered technological challenges barring the way to the features and experiences they dream to offer? Yes. I could go on.

Wether you like it or not you're just being foolish if you continue to bring up 2014 like it's some sort of totem of their guilt. That is a joke dead and buried and only those who seek to perpetuate a pointless campaign of doubt and slander against a project that's given no cause to deserve it keep bringing it up. If the worst thing you can point to is mismanagement, bad communication, bad time estimates, and "feature creep" then who gives a crap? There isn't a software development studio on this Earth not guilty of the same. That's the petty, skin deep shit that people need to just forgive and forget and focus on what they actually produce, even if and when it takes them longer to do so than you were hoping. Heads up! They're on their schedule, not yours. Circle back to "Help us make the game we've always dreamed of making." That feature creep is as good a built-in assumption of such an open-ended pledge as I can think of.

Full disclosure--I am an original backer. I've got about $530 pledged to development, the last of which was all the way back in 2014. No regrets. See you in the 'verse, nuggets.

El Pit wrote on Apr 17, 2017, 11:56:The cultists are getting really desperate. I heard a rumor that Star Citizen supporters are now selling JPGs of their organs on the black market to support the development of more game features with the earned money.

The cultists are getting really desperate. I heard a rumor that Star Citizen supporters are now selling JPGs of their organs on the black market to support the development of more game features with the earned money.

Says the person who registered today and has three posts all SC related. Tell me, is it your mission to go around the Interwebs and defend the honor of your fair maiden Star Citizen against the dastardly ne'er-do-wells?

SFanderson wrote on Apr 16, 2017, 16:42:I can't help but laugh every time I see Star Citizen on blues. The people here are an overwhelming minority with regards to their views on this game. Like seriously, this is the Westboro Baptist Church of the gaming community.

Oh look, it's one post guy. Hi Mr. one post guy, I really appreciate the irony of your post. Comparing us with a cultist church, when you are the one that believes.

The bonus is that his account was made today.

Ahaha. This is the only narrative you can think of to try and spin away from the fact that you guys are both nutcases. That's how everyone thinks of you, screaming at the top of your lungs about a video game, while nobody listens or cares. LoL.

Registers to spew shit on the board he just registered on. Doubles down when he gets called out for it.